It would be nice to think that George Bush was watching the UKTV History channel last night. Somehow I don't think he was, but when he reads this he'll know what it was all about.
'Meltdown' was a part of a series on climate change. The big question is - given that we know beyond doubt that the planet is heating up, how much can be attributed to natural variations and how much can only be explained by man made effects?
For thousands of years the temperature of the Earth was governed by two main drivers: the solar cycle (i.e. variations in the sun's output) and the amount of volcanic activity which affects the amount of dust in the atmosphere and hence the amount of sunlight that can penetrate. The match between the actual temperature and the predicted temperature is stunning - until you get to the last 150 years. The increase of greenhouse gasses and with it the global temperature has been in liftoff, tracking the course of the industrial revolution and consequent carbon emissions.
Surprisingly one of the big voices in the debate in America putting pressure on the White House Muppet has been Big Energy. Surprising? Yes, until you realise that they own massive infrastructure and they need to be able to plan their businesses. They know that carbon emission caps will be arriving sooner or later, but until they have a regulatory level playing field it is hard for them to know how to invest their shareholders' capital.
Watch this space.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Low Energy
Having just received my latest electricity bill I have some good news to report.
Aided by the fact that Waitrose was selling low energy lightbulbs at 99p we decided to swap out every bulb in the house. The old incandescent bulbs went in the bin and a few friends were persuaded to do the same.
The good news is that the reduction in our first electricity bill since making the switch has more than paid for the new bulbs. Already! Added to that we've made another small step to reducing our carbon footprint.
Not before time: last night was watching one of Attenborough's Planet Earth series about the impact that the disappearing sea ice is having on polar bears. I'm wondering how long it will be before the polar bear becomes a mascot in the campaign for change. Not long I hope. Even George Global Menace Bush may have to take note if he's seen to be against the white furry things - although I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near one unless you want to be eaten.
Now there's a thought!
Aided by the fact that Waitrose was selling low energy lightbulbs at 99p we decided to swap out every bulb in the house. The old incandescent bulbs went in the bin and a few friends were persuaded to do the same.
The good news is that the reduction in our first electricity bill since making the switch has more than paid for the new bulbs. Already! Added to that we've made another small step to reducing our carbon footprint.
Not before time: last night was watching one of Attenborough's Planet Earth series about the impact that the disappearing sea ice is having on polar bears. I'm wondering how long it will be before the polar bear becomes a mascot in the campaign for change. Not long I hope. Even George Global Menace Bush may have to take note if he's seen to be against the white furry things - although I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near one unless you want to be eaten.
Now there's a thought!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Sliding Doors
I took my children to London last week and we called in at the Tate Modern. It's one of our favourites places to visit down there, but to be honest we were a bit disappointed: like the place had lost its way. The Tate Modern was where I first learned what modern art was all about - taking everyday objects, looking at them in a different way and making a statement or triggering a feeling that you wouldn't normally have.
But then we got to the Sliding Doors. Just like the sliding automatic doors you get as you enter a shop on the high street, but a whole series of them like a corridor. And with mirrors in them instead of glass. What a feeling! Just like in life the doors open, and then they shut again and you see yourself coming the other way. Sometimes a whole seris of them opened together as people walked through and you got a glimpse of the future. Then they shut again and and the future became a mystery once more as you were trapped back in your little cell.
It's not often that a piece of art seems so real and so powerful. And of course we get used to seeing everyday objects used in imaginative ways - so the artist has a hard job on his hands. But this time he hit the spot with me - well done!
But then we got to the Sliding Doors. Just like the sliding automatic doors you get as you enter a shop on the high street, but a whole series of them like a corridor. And with mirrors in them instead of glass. What a feeling! Just like in life the doors open, and then they shut again and you see yourself coming the other way. Sometimes a whole seris of them opened together as people walked through and you got a glimpse of the future. Then they shut again and and the future became a mystery once more as you were trapped back in your little cell.
It's not often that a piece of art seems so real and so powerful. And of course we get used to seeing everyday objects used in imaginative ways - so the artist has a hard job on his hands. But this time he hit the spot with me - well done!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Boom and bust
One of the more depressing attitudes I come across in life is the "Why should we do anything about our carbon emissions when what we produce in the UK is only 2% of the problem. There's no point until America, China and India come on board." This attitude is variously known as narrow mindedness, negativity, lack of vision or plain lack of understanding of how the world works.
We all know - well some of us do - that all change follows a known cycle. The early adopters are small in number but they lead the pack. In time their numbers increase as problems and costs are resolved. Eventually the new way becomes mainstream and it remains only to tidy up the laggards. The aforementioned countries do look as if they are starting to shift their position - but would they have done so if others had not taken the lead? I think not.
Today an old geezer sat next to me in the overpriced cafe at a trade show and started to expound these sorts of attitudes as if he expected to me agree with him. He was keen to let me know that he had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England and that what this country needed was people who had made their way up from nothing and not smart arses out of university.
What he didn't know was that I also have had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England. (And on another occasion dinner with Kate Barker of the Monetary Policy Committee - who can only be admired for her intellect, perception and insight - and who has a working class background as well as having excelled in her academic career.) The Governor, however, was keen to tell us what a great job the Bank of England was now doing having stopped the cycle of boom and bust, and that we hadn't had a recession for over a decade.
At this point I got on my hind legs to say that a good old recession once in a while is a good idea because it pushes some of the less efficient companies out of business and clears out the crap.
He had a counter argument of course, but what he didn't know is that I had a list of names up my sleeve. Businesses that Stoke on Trent can do without. I was going to say that if they are reading this they know who they are - but they probably don't because they are too stupid. As of today the list has just increased by one.
We all know - well some of us do - that all change follows a known cycle. The early adopters are small in number but they lead the pack. In time their numbers increase as problems and costs are resolved. Eventually the new way becomes mainstream and it remains only to tidy up the laggards. The aforementioned countries do look as if they are starting to shift their position - but would they have done so if others had not taken the lead? I think not.
Today an old geezer sat next to me in the overpriced cafe at a trade show and started to expound these sorts of attitudes as if he expected to me agree with him. He was keen to let me know that he had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England and that what this country needed was people who had made their way up from nothing and not smart arses out of university.
What he didn't know was that I also have had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England. (And on another occasion dinner with Kate Barker of the Monetary Policy Committee - who can only be admired for her intellect, perception and insight - and who has a working class background as well as having excelled in her academic career.) The Governor, however, was keen to tell us what a great job the Bank of England was now doing having stopped the cycle of boom and bust, and that we hadn't had a recession for over a decade.
At this point I got on my hind legs to say that a good old recession once in a while is a good idea because it pushes some of the less efficient companies out of business and clears out the crap.
He had a counter argument of course, but what he didn't know is that I had a list of names up my sleeve. Businesses that Stoke on Trent can do without. I was going to say that if they are reading this they know who they are - but they probably don't because they are too stupid. As of today the list has just increased by one.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The greening of George Bush
The greening of George Bush may seem like an oxymoron. (That means a contradiction in terms, not that Bush is a moron - which he is.)
However, there are some interesting implications of his quest to rid America of its "addition to oil". The first is his plan to invest massively in bio-ethanol production - a vegetable based substitute for gasoline. This may have more to do with creating a market for their grain mountain - and baiting the votes of said farmers than any green credentials. Environmentalists will tell you that bio-ethanol is the wrong alternative fuel to be going for because of the environmental cost of producing it (biodiesel is a much better option). But the United States have very few diesel cars - unlike Europe where around a half of new car registrations are diesels.
So - given a grain mountain, a nation of gasoline driven cars, a bunch of pissed off farmers an over dependency on Iraqi oil (now there's another story), a bunch of vehicle manufacturers who say they are more interested in bio-ethanol than bio-diesel and pressure from the Christian right who are getting huffy about trashing God's planet it does seem like a plan.
But - here's the rub. Biofuels have had very little press in the environmental debate in Europe. Very few people have heard of biodiesel even though it is available right now and will run perfectly well in todays diesel vehicles. The unintended impact of his announcement is that biofuels will get a higher profile. And that in Europe that probably means biodiesel - the feedstock (oilseed rape) grows here very nicely and there is a much higher percentage of diesel vehicles on the road.
The obstacles remain a bunch of sceptical vehicle manufacturers who never do anything until the law forces them to and a mean minded chancellor whose idea of a green budget is to raise taxes on alternative fuels.
None of this changes the undisputable fact that Bush is a global menace and Blair is a smarmy arse-licking, self deluded, twat. But there is hope.
However, there are some interesting implications of his quest to rid America of its "addition to oil". The first is his plan to invest massively in bio-ethanol production - a vegetable based substitute for gasoline. This may have more to do with creating a market for their grain mountain - and baiting the votes of said farmers than any green credentials. Environmentalists will tell you that bio-ethanol is the wrong alternative fuel to be going for because of the environmental cost of producing it (biodiesel is a much better option). But the United States have very few diesel cars - unlike Europe where around a half of new car registrations are diesels.
So - given a grain mountain, a nation of gasoline driven cars, a bunch of pissed off farmers an over dependency on Iraqi oil (now there's another story), a bunch of vehicle manufacturers who say they are more interested in bio-ethanol than bio-diesel and pressure from the Christian right who are getting huffy about trashing God's planet it does seem like a plan.
But - here's the rub. Biofuels have had very little press in the environmental debate in Europe. Very few people have heard of biodiesel even though it is available right now and will run perfectly well in todays diesel vehicles. The unintended impact of his announcement is that biofuels will get a higher profile. And that in Europe that probably means biodiesel - the feedstock (oilseed rape) grows here very nicely and there is a much higher percentage of diesel vehicles on the road.
The obstacles remain a bunch of sceptical vehicle manufacturers who never do anything until the law forces them to and a mean minded chancellor whose idea of a green budget is to raise taxes on alternative fuels.
None of this changes the undisputable fact that Bush is a global menace and Blair is a smarmy arse-licking, self deluded, twat. But there is hope.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
A nation terrorised by dogs
I don't like dogs at the best of times - there are some that I tolerate but that's about it. I do know people for whom a dog is a great support in an otherwise difficult life and I would not want to deny them a friend. But largely it's experience of what they and their owners can be like that hacks me off.
At the lowest level, just having some mut hanging around in the kitchen seems unhygenic to me. But some of the dog behaviour I've come across is terrifying if not downright lethal.
First case: Christmas 2005 I was walking across the park in Leamington with my children and my mother (then 86). A large dog - sort of alsatian size - comes bounding over the grass and jumps up at my mother. A shouting match develops between me and the idiot young woman who refuses to put it on a lead and seems oblivious of the potentialy fatal consequences of an old person being knocked over by an out of control dog. If she's reading this then please get in touch - I haven't finished with you yet you ignorant twat.
Case two: I'm cycling along the canal where I used to live in London and a large dog bounds out of a scrapyard, pushes me off my bike and nips me. The owner: "You're lucky it's not the other one - it's f*cking bigger!" Well thanks, obviously you get your kicks from terrorising innocent passers by. Nice guy.
Case three: my neighbour has - did have - a young sheepdog. Playful and relatively harmless I suppose, but it turned my field into a virtual no-go area. One time I had to rescue my daughter from the middle of the field crying and terrified as it circled round her barking. It would always be out there running around you and barking, getting tangled up in whatever you were doing. How it never ended up on the wrong end of a chainsaw I shall never know. It was an accident waiting to happen, eventually it did. Fortunately it got run over and killed and hasn't been replaced.
I could go on. But my point is, why oh why can't people who own dogs understand the distress and fear that their pets cause to other people? And why is so little done about it? When Princess Anne's terrier attacked and injured a child I still cannot understand why the court did not order it to be put down - still less why she did not have it put down of her own instigation. There is no room in a civilised world for people to have dogs that go around attacking people. Period. I'm told that in animal rescue circles a rescued dog that shows any sort of aggressive temperament is put down immediately - and so it should be for all dogs, and in some cases their owners as well.
At the lowest level, just having some mut hanging around in the kitchen seems unhygenic to me. But some of the dog behaviour I've come across is terrifying if not downright lethal.
First case: Christmas 2005 I was walking across the park in Leamington with my children and my mother (then 86). A large dog - sort of alsatian size - comes bounding over the grass and jumps up at my mother. A shouting match develops between me and the idiot young woman who refuses to put it on a lead and seems oblivious of the potentialy fatal consequences of an old person being knocked over by an out of control dog. If she's reading this then please get in touch - I haven't finished with you yet you ignorant twat.
Case two: I'm cycling along the canal where I used to live in London and a large dog bounds out of a scrapyard, pushes me off my bike and nips me. The owner: "You're lucky it's not the other one - it's f*cking bigger!" Well thanks, obviously you get your kicks from terrorising innocent passers by. Nice guy.
Case three: my neighbour has - did have - a young sheepdog. Playful and relatively harmless I suppose, but it turned my field into a virtual no-go area. One time I had to rescue my daughter from the middle of the field crying and terrified as it circled round her barking. It would always be out there running around you and barking, getting tangled up in whatever you were doing. How it never ended up on the wrong end of a chainsaw I shall never know. It was an accident waiting to happen, eventually it did. Fortunately it got run over and killed and hasn't been replaced.
I could go on. But my point is, why oh why can't people who own dogs understand the distress and fear that their pets cause to other people? And why is so little done about it? When Princess Anne's terrier attacked and injured a child I still cannot understand why the court did not order it to be put down - still less why she did not have it put down of her own instigation. There is no room in a civilised world for people to have dogs that go around attacking people. Period. I'm told that in animal rescue circles a rescued dog that shows any sort of aggressive temperament is put down immediately - and so it should be for all dogs, and in some cases their owners as well.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Late Night Love
One of the factoids that came out at the end of the year - and which did not surprise me - was that married households are now in the minority.
Not surprising? Well considering that human history on this planet goes back around one million years and the Marriage Act only happened around 200 years ago - and that marriage seems to be more about property than love it's surprising that more people haven't smelled a rat before now.
Or perhaps they did - most of old literature seems to be about people forced into unhappy marriages when they would rather have eloped with their lovers.
But listen to Graham Torrington's Late Night Love and you start to wonder if 90% of the population have lost the plot. People ringing in "He/she cheated on me and blah, blah, whahhhh!!" Fill in the blanks and that's most of it covered. Isn't that terrible? No just get used to it, and here's why....
Firstly we've been encouraged to place all our emotional and financial eggs in one basket. It's not realistic nor healthy nor sustainable. Secondly, we humans are primates - and primates generally live in polygamous societies. Why? Because it makes genetic sense to do so - young born in polygamous societies have a better survival rate. And that applies to humans as well as other primates.
What's more - there seems to be a presumption that screwing around is a male preoccupation. Well I've got news for you - every shag requires both a man and a woman - so the numbers must be exactly the same. Not a lot of people seem to have noticed that - perhaps it needs to be pointed out!
So Graham Torrington: next time you're moralising on your radio show about the things that people get up to remember this: the way people behave now is just a continuation of the way they have for the last million years. We evolved that way for good reason and a couple of hundred years of moral code isn't going to change that.
Not surprising? Well considering that human history on this planet goes back around one million years and the Marriage Act only happened around 200 years ago - and that marriage seems to be more about property than love it's surprising that more people haven't smelled a rat before now.
Or perhaps they did - most of old literature seems to be about people forced into unhappy marriages when they would rather have eloped with their lovers.
But listen to Graham Torrington's Late Night Love and you start to wonder if 90% of the population have lost the plot. People ringing in "He/she cheated on me and blah, blah, whahhhh!!" Fill in the blanks and that's most of it covered. Isn't that terrible? No just get used to it, and here's why....
Firstly we've been encouraged to place all our emotional and financial eggs in one basket. It's not realistic nor healthy nor sustainable. Secondly, we humans are primates - and primates generally live in polygamous societies. Why? Because it makes genetic sense to do so - young born in polygamous societies have a better survival rate. And that applies to humans as well as other primates.
What's more - there seems to be a presumption that screwing around is a male preoccupation. Well I've got news for you - every shag requires both a man and a woman - so the numbers must be exactly the same. Not a lot of people seem to have noticed that - perhaps it needs to be pointed out!
So Graham Torrington: next time you're moralising on your radio show about the things that people get up to remember this: the way people behave now is just a continuation of the way they have for the last million years. We evolved that way for good reason and a couple of hundred years of moral code isn't going to change that.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Nuclear power or save the planet?
A recent feature in the Guardian raised some interesting points about renewable power.
A field of mirrors focussing the sun's energy on a furnace can be used to power conventional electricity turbines. Several of these power stations have been operating successfully in desert regions around the world for many years. Engineers have estimated that covering just 0.5% of the world's deserts with these ingenious devices would meet the entire planet's electricity demand with ease.
It seems like the ultimate answer - there's lots of sunshine in Africa so they can get rich selling their electricity to Europe and solve all their problems. We no longer need to buy oil from the late Saddam Hussein and other undesirables. Global warming will be halted in its tracks.
So what's the catch? Well part of the problem seems to be that somebody wants to invest billions and billions of our money in a new nuclear power programme which will generate about 3% of the world's electricity by 2050 - if ever - at many times the cost of these ingeneous solar powerstations. The other problem apparently is that we would need a new pan-Europe high voltage electricity grid to move the power around - and that requires those same people who want their nuclear power to dig into their budgets and build one.
No wonder you're not heard about Concentrated Solar Power before. Doesn't it just make you feel that the planet is safe in the hands of our elected leaders? Erm.... No!
A field of mirrors focussing the sun's energy on a furnace can be used to power conventional electricity turbines. Several of these power stations have been operating successfully in desert regions around the world for many years. Engineers have estimated that covering just 0.5% of the world's deserts with these ingenious devices would meet the entire planet's electricity demand with ease.
It seems like the ultimate answer - there's lots of sunshine in Africa so they can get rich selling their electricity to Europe and solve all their problems. We no longer need to buy oil from the late Saddam Hussein and other undesirables. Global warming will be halted in its tracks.
So what's the catch? Well part of the problem seems to be that somebody wants to invest billions and billions of our money in a new nuclear power programme which will generate about 3% of the world's electricity by 2050 - if ever - at many times the cost of these ingeneous solar powerstations. The other problem apparently is that we would need a new pan-Europe high voltage electricity grid to move the power around - and that requires those same people who want their nuclear power to dig into their budgets and build one.
No wonder you're not heard about Concentrated Solar Power before. Doesn't it just make you feel that the planet is safe in the hands of our elected leaders? Erm.... No!
Ode to Saddam
It was predictable if nothing else to hear George Bush proclaiming that Saddam's execution was another milestone on the road to democracy for Iraq. But - and this hardly ever seems to get a mention - who says that democracy in Iraq is the right answer?
As far as I know there are no Muslim democracies - maybe that tells us something? Possibly that democracy and self determination are basically Christian concepts and that maybe Islam has different views on how to run things which should be respected.
What we are actually seeing is a re-run of the Crusades in all but name, orchestrated by a couple of fanatical Christian fuckwits. One of whom seems to think that the way to save God's earth is to open up protected arctic regions for oil exploration, the other presides over a government whose idea of a green budget is to raise the tax on biofuels.
That's what democracy delivers. Stop the world I need to get off!
As far as I know there are no Muslim democracies - maybe that tells us something? Possibly that democracy and self determination are basically Christian concepts and that maybe Islam has different views on how to run things which should be respected.
What we are actually seeing is a re-run of the Crusades in all but name, orchestrated by a couple of fanatical Christian fuckwits. One of whom seems to think that the way to save God's earth is to open up protected arctic regions for oil exploration, the other presides over a government whose idea of a green budget is to raise the tax on biofuels.
That's what democracy delivers. Stop the world I need to get off!
Saturday, December 30, 2006
To navigation the hard way
Call me old fashioned, but when I want to go somewhere I get the map out and plan the route.
Some time ago I was persuaded against my better judgement to buy a satnav. Most of the time it sits in the glovebox switched off, and to be fair it does have its uses in pinpointing an exact destination somewhere you're not familiar with. But the other day I took my son to Sheffield to show him my old uni. We took a detour over to Brightside to see the old steel making area - now all bulldozed and redeveloped. And then on the way back he keyed in "Bakewell" to the satnav to show us the way home. And that was where the trouble started.
It took us out of town a way I would never have thought of - but against my better judgement I thought we'd give it a go. We never did make it. After many miles slowly driving through the dark foggy roads across the Derbyshire Peak district we finally came to the A6 Matlock to Buxton road. A few minutes studying the map put us nearer to Buxton than Bakewell so the satnav was promptly switched off in disgrace and we came home via Buxton.
Thing is: this sort of thing happens every single time I use a satnav.
Where I live is on the A51 and the next village is about a kilometer away on the A53. You can travel along the A51 until it meets the A53 a couple of miles away or you can take the lane direct. A while ago I was walking home and a couple of cop cars flew by blue lights, the lot. I walked back to my house along the lane and as I arrived these same two police cars came flying along the A51. Exactly who they were trying to catch I don't know - but if he didn't have a satnav he would have got away on foot.
Some time ago I was persuaded against my better judgement to buy a satnav. Most of the time it sits in the glovebox switched off, and to be fair it does have its uses in pinpointing an exact destination somewhere you're not familiar with. But the other day I took my son to Sheffield to show him my old uni. We took a detour over to Brightside to see the old steel making area - now all bulldozed and redeveloped. And then on the way back he keyed in "Bakewell" to the satnav to show us the way home. And that was where the trouble started.
It took us out of town a way I would never have thought of - but against my better judgement I thought we'd give it a go. We never did make it. After many miles slowly driving through the dark foggy roads across the Derbyshire Peak district we finally came to the A6 Matlock to Buxton road. A few minutes studying the map put us nearer to Buxton than Bakewell so the satnav was promptly switched off in disgrace and we came home via Buxton.
Thing is: this sort of thing happens every single time I use a satnav.
Where I live is on the A51 and the next village is about a kilometer away on the A53. You can travel along the A51 until it meets the A53 a couple of miles away or you can take the lane direct. A while ago I was walking home and a couple of cop cars flew by blue lights, the lot. I walked back to my house along the lane and as I arrived these same two police cars came flying along the A51. Exactly who they were trying to catch I don't know - but if he didn't have a satnav he would have got away on foot.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Green budget - NOT! My letter in The Independent
Thanks to the editor of The Independent who today published word for word my letter to his newspaper. I guess it ended up in Gordon Brown's press clippings for the day - and hopefully a few other people who can use the ammunition better than I can....
Brown's 'green' tax changes hit biofuel
Sir: Far from having delivered a green budget Mr Brown has just taken another step to killing off the embryonic biofuel industry in this country.
When he announced that road fuel duty was to be increased on petrol and diesel he also announced that the differential for rebated fuels would remain unchanged. Two of these rebated fuels are biodiesel and bioethanol, both of which are manufactured from renewable plant sources and are both carbon neutral and have extremely low emissions. Mr Brown has just increased the road fuel duty on these biofuels without saying as much.
The tax rebate for biodiesel is such that with a following wind it is just about possible to match the pump prices for fossil-based diesel - but with virtually no margin. Prices for raw vegetable oil, which is the key ingredient in its manufacture, fluctuate significantly and many of the producers are relatively new businesses that need all the help they can get.
Not only do we need to raise public awareness of the availability of these fuels, which can be used in today's cars without modification, but we also need to increase pressure on the vehicle manufacturers to take biofuels seriously, which at the moment they do not.
Most of the businesses involved in the manufacture of biofuels do it because of a passionate belief in the fight against carbon emissions and maybe the hope of profits some time in the future. Many of them have already closed down. Mr Brown has not helped.
RICHARD OPPENHEIMER
Brown's 'green' tax changes hit biofuel
Sir: Far from having delivered a green budget Mr Brown has just taken another step to killing off the embryonic biofuel industry in this country.
When he announced that road fuel duty was to be increased on petrol and diesel he also announced that the differential for rebated fuels would remain unchanged. Two of these rebated fuels are biodiesel and bioethanol, both of which are manufactured from renewable plant sources and are both carbon neutral and have extremely low emissions. Mr Brown has just increased the road fuel duty on these biofuels without saying as much.
The tax rebate for biodiesel is such that with a following wind it is just about possible to match the pump prices for fossil-based diesel - but with virtually no margin. Prices for raw vegetable oil, which is the key ingredient in its manufacture, fluctuate significantly and many of the producers are relatively new businesses that need all the help they can get.
Not only do we need to raise public awareness of the availability of these fuels, which can be used in today's cars without modification, but we also need to increase pressure on the vehicle manufacturers to take biofuels seriously, which at the moment they do not.
Most of the businesses involved in the manufacture of biofuels do it because of a passionate belief in the fight against carbon emissions and maybe the hope of profits some time in the future. Many of them have already closed down. Mr Brown has not helped.
RICHARD OPPENHEIMER
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Green budget - NOT!
The thing about headlines is that if you look read the small print you normally find that they are a load of b@ll*x! - and this latest budget is now exception.
What you don't find unless you really look for it is a small statement that the differential on rebated road fuels will remain the same. What this actually means is that the tax on biofuels is going to be increased in line with petroleum fuels.
I spend most of my evenings helping friend of mine to run his fledgling biodiesel business. Cold nights spent standing at taxi ranks persuading taxi drivers to use biodiesel because it's green. Trying to peruade them that it won't damage their engines - that it will run OK in their taxis. So far we've managed to keep the price a couple of pence a litre below the pump price for normal diesel - but we've been hanging on hoping and praying for a reduction in the road fuel duty that will make the business viable.
The last setback we had was a sudden increase in the price of rapeseed oil - the biggest single cost in the equation. Prices fluctuate a lot and without a decent margin there's not a hope of competing with petroleum diesel? So is Mr Brown helping the development of clean grean biofuels. Like hell!
And another thing - did you read the bit about income tax exemption for people who install micro wind turbines and get paid for the excess electricity they generate? Find me an electricity company that will pay you ANYTHING worth talking about. How about a bit of legislation forcing the electricity supplers to pay the going rate for wind turbine owners. But then that would mean upsetting the big electricty suppliers and we can't have that can we?
What you don't find unless you really look for it is a small statement that the differential on rebated road fuels will remain the same. What this actually means is that the tax on biofuels is going to be increased in line with petroleum fuels.
I spend most of my evenings helping friend of mine to run his fledgling biodiesel business. Cold nights spent standing at taxi ranks persuading taxi drivers to use biodiesel because it's green. Trying to peruade them that it won't damage their engines - that it will run OK in their taxis. So far we've managed to keep the price a couple of pence a litre below the pump price for normal diesel - but we've been hanging on hoping and praying for a reduction in the road fuel duty that will make the business viable.
All around us we hear of small businesses trying to set up and make biodiesel but having to shut down because of financial pressures.
The last setback we had was a sudden increase in the price of rapeseed oil - the biggest single cost in the equation. Prices fluctuate a lot and without a decent margin there's not a hope of competing with petroleum diesel? So is Mr Brown helping the development of clean grean biofuels. Like hell!
And another thing - did you read the bit about income tax exemption for people who install micro wind turbines and get paid for the excess electricity they generate? Find me an electricity company that will pay you ANYTHING worth talking about. How about a bit of legislation forcing the electricity supplers to pay the going rate for wind turbine owners. But then that would mean upsetting the big electricty suppliers and we can't have that can we?
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Litvinenko and the new russian connection
In all the discussion about the late Mr Litvinenko and his untimely death we have heard all sorts of theories about who might have done it and why. The smart money is on some russian state sponsored assassins - after all, the Polonium 210 that he was poisoned with didn't exactly come from the local garden centre did it? In fact, I have it on good authority that there's only around 50 grammes of the stuff on the entire planet.
So why? Observers suggest that Litvinenko was little more than a nuisance to the russian government - so why bother? Well - elsewhere we have heard about our beloved energy minister (Malcolm Wickes) celebrating having secured our natural gas supplies with contracts to import gas from Russia. (Our own natural gas having been squandered in the race to heat up the planet.)
The Russians however, have already shown their willingness to use their gas as a political weapon earlier this year when they shut off supplies to the Ukraine. Is the British government going to give the Russians too much grief about assassinating people on British soil when the supplies of natural gas can be shut off at a moment's notice? I don't think so. So maybe Mr Putin was trying to make a point - the Cold War is history, he has the upper hand now.
Malcolm Wickes, as I pointed out earlier, is not as clever as he likes to think he is.
So why? Observers suggest that Litvinenko was little more than a nuisance to the russian government - so why bother? Well - elsewhere we have heard about our beloved energy minister (Malcolm Wickes) celebrating having secured our natural gas supplies with contracts to import gas from Russia. (Our own natural gas having been squandered in the race to heat up the planet.)
The Russians however, have already shown their willingness to use their gas as a political weapon earlier this year when they shut off supplies to the Ukraine. Is the British government going to give the Russians too much grief about assassinating people on British soil when the supplies of natural gas can be shut off at a moment's notice? I don't think so. So maybe Mr Putin was trying to make a point - the Cold War is history, he has the upper hand now.
Malcolm Wickes, as I pointed out earlier, is not as clever as he likes to think he is.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Road Pricing and carbon emissions
Road pricing has hit the news again - and I have to say I have some sympathy for the idea. But in the debate about taxation of vehicles according to their carbon emissions, or taxation of fuel there's a key issue that never seems to get a look in - alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels - biofuels, biodiesel are available right now. Existing diesel engines can run on them without modification. They are carbon neutral and engines running on them have incredibly low emissions. What's more they totally eliminate dependence on oil imported from places it's better not to be dependent on.
So, if the government were as keen to be green as they say they are why aren't they promoting biofuels and giving generous tax breaks to encourage their use. Come to that why not scrap the idea of road fuel taxes altogether and just replace them with a carbon tax on fossil fuels based purely on their fossil carbon content whether it's to be used as road fuel or any other purpose.
Could the reason be something called Shell, or BP, or Exxon...? Or could it be an old friend of mine Malcolm Wickes - the Energy Minister - who's probably right at this moment licking Tony Blair's backside and saying "Yes Sir, nuclear power, sir. Anything you say, sir." Or, as another old friend of mine - the late and very well respected Earl Conrad Russell once confided in me: "Malcolm Wickes isn't as clever as he likes to think he is."
Alternative fuels - biofuels, biodiesel are available right now. Existing diesel engines can run on them without modification. They are carbon neutral and engines running on them have incredibly low emissions. What's more they totally eliminate dependence on oil imported from places it's better not to be dependent on.
So, if the government were as keen to be green as they say they are why aren't they promoting biofuels and giving generous tax breaks to encourage their use. Come to that why not scrap the idea of road fuel taxes altogether and just replace them with a carbon tax on fossil fuels based purely on their fossil carbon content whether it's to be used as road fuel or any other purpose.
Could the reason be something called Shell, or BP, or Exxon...? Or could it be an old friend of mine Malcolm Wickes - the Energy Minister - who's probably right at this moment licking Tony Blair's backside and saying "Yes Sir, nuclear power, sir. Anything you say, sir." Or, as another old friend of mine - the late and very well respected Earl Conrad Russell once confided in me: "Malcolm Wickes isn't as clever as he likes to think he is."
Friday, December 01, 2006
World AIDS day - Remember the boy who cried 'Wolf'?
I hate to queer the pitch on this one, but tragic as situation is - if you happen to live in Africa - there seems to be an atmosphere of out of proportion hysteria in the western world which is more of a danger than AIDS itself.
I can remember in the mid 1980s when scientists were trying to predict the spread of AIDS and their models were coming up with best and worst case scenarios. Even the worst case predictions showed that in the western world at least it wasn't going to be a problem. But even so the government decided to leaflet every house in the United Kingdom to warn of the dangers.
The outcome 25 years later: the spread of HIV has been EVEN LESS than the best case forecasts predicted. Pregnant women have been routinely screened for HIV for many years now and possible infections have been consistently below 0.04% i.e. 1 in 2,500 and very few previously unknown cases are dicovered by screening. The assumed rate of transmission between heterosexuals has been revised downwards from 1 in 800 to less than 1 in 1000. In other words, the random chance of catching HIV in the heterosexual population is less than 1 in 2.5 million. And of the 60,000 people who have HIV in the United Kingdom over half have come here already carrying the virus.
So why the hysteria? This is not Africa. Why create an atmosphere of fear which darkens many people's lives? Or is this just another case of the media blowing it all out of proportion while nobody dares to stand up and state the facts in case they get shot down in flames for telling the truth.
I can remember in the mid 1980s when scientists were trying to predict the spread of AIDS and their models were coming up with best and worst case scenarios. Even the worst case predictions showed that in the western world at least it wasn't going to be a problem. But even so the government decided to leaflet every house in the United Kingdom to warn of the dangers.
The outcome 25 years later: the spread of HIV has been EVEN LESS than the best case forecasts predicted. Pregnant women have been routinely screened for HIV for many years now and possible infections have been consistently below 0.04% i.e. 1 in 2,500 and very few previously unknown cases are dicovered by screening. The assumed rate of transmission between heterosexuals has been revised downwards from 1 in 800 to less than 1 in 1000. In other words, the random chance of catching HIV in the heterosexual population is less than 1 in 2.5 million. And of the 60,000 people who have HIV in the United Kingdom over half have come here already carrying the virus.
So why the hysteria? This is not Africa. Why create an atmosphere of fear which darkens many people's lives? Or is this just another case of the media blowing it all out of proportion while nobody dares to stand up and state the facts in case they get shot down in flames for telling the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
